Violent Black Criminals . . .

I know you will probably not believe me when I tell you that this post has nothing to do with Steve Hofmeyr. For what it is worth, it does not. It is as a result of a conversation on tweeter, between someone who calls himself comradesipho and another by the name of sentletse. These two among others seem to have been talking about black criminals and how they are violent or maybe there were just talking about crime, I don't know. In the cause of the conversation, there was a suggestion that if we could figure out why black criminals are so violent, then we would go a long way in solving South Africa's problems. I may have gotten the whole thing wrong though but I hope to learn from it.

Is this conversation about black criminals as opposed to white criminals? Is the use of black in this conversation the same as the use of that term in relation to BEE? How would understanding the violent black criminals help to solve the problems of South Africa? Are these problems of violence or of crime or problems generally?

Anyway, back to violent black criminals. Does it really matter that violent crimes are committed by blacks? Well, in South Africa it does matter. It provides important statistical evidence that blacks, not crime, are violent. Consequently, there is or must be a link between violence and race. The continuum would be from white (non-violent) to blacks (very violent) with (who exactly) in the middle - here I must admit I am stumped. All this is no news. It is human to seek out "facts" or (more appropriately) incidents that support your view of the world. It is the same thinking that supports the view that muslims are terrorists, jews are wealthy, indians are cheats and so on and so forth. It is on this naturally human basis that race becomes a study object of violent crime.

What interests me in this whole race-is-a-function-or-cause-of-all-else world view, is how I get to represent or be represented by others of "my race". A few years ago, some boys with "good breeding", who also happened to attend one of Johannesburg's finest schools, just happened to beat one of their own senseless. This violent criminal act was seen just as that. Of course there was a problem here - white boys of such good breeding just don't do such things. It must have been the alcohol. No, wait a minute. It turns out the lion's share of the violence was carried out by some boy from "the wrong side of the tracks". I think he was from the east rand and did not attend the top school concerned. These boys and others like them do not and are never said to represent whiteness in their dastardly acts. I happen to yawn without covering my mouth? Ah yes you got it, the double-whammy of bad breeding and race.

This of course is a complex web; it had to be to be sustainable over such a long time. The racist project is one of the most clever systems to be devised. It survives on its appearance of complexity; on this need to explain it. The system is so clever that very clever people spend a lot of time considering its merits and demerits. I have often wonder why the system is simply not destroyed just as it was constructed. The response I get all the time is that "you are being too simplistic - you don't understand". I concede that I am a great fan of simplicity; it is irresistible to me and has served me well so far.

To illustrate: black people routinely go to rugby matches, cricket matches, golf at sun city, etc. This is never celebrated as incidents of a society transformed and united - correctly so. Six white people among 7 thousand soccer fans? "Oh just see how our country has changed and how the people are together". People often ask with what seems to be genuine puzzlement: "what happened to the goodwill of the soccer world cup?" Nothing happened to the goodwill, it wasn't there in the first place. People behaved because security was good and they sat together because that's just how the ticketing worked. A lot of white people went to the events because more white countries qualified and more white people could afford it. Simple really. After the game we all go home.

This may come as a surprise to some folk but I would rather no one comes over the wall at my home to rob and kill me and my family, no matter what race they belong to. I would rather no one turned their children into porn stars or kept their daughters in the basement for their sexual pleasure. Unfortunately though, people do just that. It seems to me that violent crime is ok as long as its victims are not white, regardless of the perpetrators at least in South Africa.

Crime is a function of a whole lot of things, some known some not. Some day we will knuckle down to deal with those things. In the meantime, do watch out for those violent black criminals.

Who is Annalie Botes?

There seems to be a rule that when one says something, especially if it is a view or an opinion, then one has to be right. I am not even sure what being right would be in that context but I will not dare unzip that wet suit. So I say something like “Swazi women are the most beautiful”. Yeah, yeah it is all positive and shit but what informs the observation? Is it my visit to the “reed-dance” festival; or is it a result of some study of “beautiful” women? I bet you my overdraft that the garden variety response to this opinion would probably be something along the lines of “okay that’s your view or taste or whatever other let’s agree to disagree expression or even agree”. I bet you that no one will call me a tribalist or racist (should they discover that I am actually white).

Now, what happens if I say “Swazi women have big bums and they steal other people’s husbands and to top it all, they have an insatiable sex drive”? Before you answer, let us consider the current brouhaha about Annelie Botes.

It is reported that Annelie does not like black people, doesn’t understand them and that she fears them. Is also reported that Annelie believes that black people are angry because of their incompetence; and that black people are responsible for the violent crime in South Africa. She is apparently waiting for her husband to go on pension so that they can both emigrate to England where her children are already living. I am intrigued by this but I will leave it at that because I am not the one who will have to deal with black people in England or the yobs for that matter.

The question for me is why is Annelie taking so much flak for her pretty much kak believes? She is probably wrong about a myriad of other things. I have not had an opportunity to read any of her books so I don’t have an insight of her other believes and fears. I don’t know the woman from the proverbial Eve. She probably believes that all black men have large penises too. So, she probably looks at black men with trepidation or relish, I don’t know. The thing is that Annelie looked around and formulated the views she expressed based on her observations. Moreso, she formulated views about which she can do nothing but pack for the land of Harry Potter.

Ok granted, she is wrong. So what? At least she is not wrong like Alan Greenspan whose error cost people their fucking homes. Fundamentally, Annelie does not hold views that are radically different from your garden variety white South African. She’s just not smart enough. The tricky thing about being wrong is that at that moment of wrongness, you are right, so I can’t even fault die ou tannie. I think that the poor tannie is taking so much flak from the sophisticated whites and the angry blacks because she is so easy. Just wait and soon she will be hauled before the equality court for hate speech or something similar to such crimes. She’s getting flak for the same reasons that motivate reporters to pursue people with strange eating habits. So what if I want to eat raw fish off the floor? Why is that anybody’s business? I will tell you why – it is because the real stories are just too damn hard.

Black people (whatever that means) do not need protection from statements that are naïve and stupid just like the Swazi women do not need protection from equally naïve albeit lustful statements. That Annelie is wrong does not make anybody else right, especially the commentators who jumped to repudiate if not crucify her. There seems to be undue fascination and interest in irrelevant nonsense. In the face of the untold amount of investment in whiteness, it is disingenuous to protest when whiteness seeks to express its supremacy, however clumsily it does it.

The story of Annalie Botes is not a story. It is a red-herring, a non-issue. It is as irrelevant as Gareth Cliff’s views on the mating habits of the Killarney Golf Club Egyptian geese.

You have to love that man Julius . . .

The CEOs of banks like those of mining companies are looting the country's resources for their individual pockets. This, or words to that effect, is what the man Julius said on television news this morning.

Just when you would have thought that the income disparities would receive proper attention and ventilation, enters the man Julius. Of course there is some difference between the mining and the banking industries. There are similarities too. The captains of either industry are the country's if not the world's, handsomely rewarded individuals. Whether they should or not be as handsomely rewarded is of course a mammoth debate. There are those who argue that the combination of the abilities, qualifications and responsibility of these individuals is enough justification for their envious pay packets. Then there are those that would say: "to each according to need and from each according to ability."

Julius simply says that they are earning far too much for an individual and that must be fixed forthwith.

What then, if I may ask, would be an appropriate salary for a CEO of a bank? Julius doesn't say but I am sure he has a number in his head that would be appropriate and in the national interest. Let us not lose sight of the prevailing negative sentiment where bankers and stockbrokers are concerned, the world over. There is sufficient smoke there to justify a suspicion of a fire, without the methylated spirits that Julius was dispensing at the Garankuwa student gathering.

It is not the first nor will it be the last time that the man Julius shall enthrall students with his brand of oratory. You will recall that he had some inspiring words and lyrics for the students of the University of Johannesburg not too long ago. Then there were the statements that led to a human rights court proceedings. Incidentally, whatever happened to that case?

The way I see it is that while there are somewhat serious and hopefully cerebral conversations happening elsewhere, someone has to keep the youth entertained. Now who other than the inimitable Julius Malema would be up to such a task, bearing in mind the short concentration span most youth suffer from? Or can it be that the ANCYL does have a programme that will see the mines nationalised and private sector salaries set by legislative fiat? I do not think that there is too much resistance to the idea of some form of public ownership of the mines. Afterall the public already owns the minerals, the mining companies only have a licence to mine and sell the minerals, at their cost. For this privilege the public, through the state apparatus, collects royalties. This is not quite the case with financial services unless something happened in Durban that changed the rules and I missed it. As far as I have been able to work it out, financial services sector is regulated for the protection of and in the public interest. As long as the institutions follow the letter of the law, they are at liberty to pay what the believe is the right price for the services of their employees, all the way to the most senior employee. This approach to business is according to Julius wrong and if he has his way, will soon be changed. For this, the youth applauds.

The irony of this whole saga is that the very students, once they qualify or is it if they qualify, stand to be employed by the very private sector that they hold in such low regard. Having accumulated knowledge and experience in their respective careers, would they accept that the government or some public formation determine how much they should earn? Maybe that problem does not arise because they probably do not wish to grow up to be a CEO of a bank or of a mining company. Maybe they wish to grow up to be a politician.

Whichever way you look at this, it can only be that the address of the man Julius can only be acknowledged for its entertainment value, if anything at all.

Consider the other call that the rich must be taxed to fund the proposed National Health Insurance. With the passage of time and declining CEO salaries (if Julius gets it right) who will then fund the NHI? Possibly the proceeds from nationalising the mines? Incidentally, how much would the CEO of the NHI be paid or will she be a public servant whose salary shall be determined by law?

Don't say this has not been entertaining please, there is a funny side to this. On a completely different note: how much would Julius say is too much for an official car of a minister? The cost of minister Davies' Toyota Fortuner or the cost of minister Nzimande's BMW?

I have to say it once more, you gotta luv that man Julius.

Our divisive constitution . . .

The constitution is too important a matter to be left to lawyers and politicians alone. This is no fancy speak; in fact I don't recall being more serious in this space than I am now, writing this post.

This weekend I had a rare privilege of reading one of the speeches written by the late Robert Sobukwe. If you can, do get a copy of that booklet of speeches by one of this country's foremost leaders. Sobukwe writes, in this particular speech, to set out the policies of the PAC - "to set the record straight" as he puts it.

On the issue of rights of the citizens under a new constitution (speaking prospectively of course) he says that the PAC would not consider minority or group rights. He goes on to say that it is the view of the PAC that granting and guaranteeing individual civil liberties would be the highest order of rights for the citizens. He says that in a free South Africa there would be no need for group rights as each individual citizen would be assured civil liberties.

I do not do Sobukwe justice in my paraphrasing of some of the views he expresses in this particular speech but I urge you to find and read it. A copy of the booklet of speeches may be found at bookshops and at the Market Theater precinct.

It is in the context of reading this speech that, as I have always believed, the short-comings of our constitution became clearer than before to me. I suppose that when one has been deprived (of anything really), even the smallest token resembling that which you have been wishing for would suffice. Of course hindsight is perfect vision and it is of course easy to sit in the comfort of my home and muse about the past as if I am an expert of sorts. For the record, I am no expert. I am a keen student of events.

The constitution of this country was born of negotiations which were meant to end the struggle, apartheid, poverty, etc. Moreso, the constitution was meant to end all forms of discrimination and to bring the nation together. You will therefore appreciate my confusion as I try to make sense of Proportional Representation. This system of voting is meant, among others, to protect the rights of minorities lest they get overrun by the black masses and become the new-age dispossessed.

What group rights such as proportional representation and the "vote for the group" rather than the individual has done is to perpertuate the very divisions that the constitution was meant to eliminate.

The result is that there is no division between the party and the government. Maybe there shouldn't be such a division but the problem here is that the executive is not accountable to parliament (representatives of the South African people) but to the party. This is no small matter. It is government of the organisation, by the organisation for the organisation. The people do not matter that much.

It is for this reason that you should not leave the constitution to the lawyers and the politicians alone. This document ultimately determines how you live your life and carry on your trade, raise and educate your children. It is a document that ought to give you the power to choose who should be in charge of public health and education. Under the current system, the political party not you, makes that choice. Loyalty to the party (whichever party that may be) is rewarded at the expense of your vote.

This will remain the case, for as long as group rights are prioritised above individual rights as it is under our divisive constitution. A constitution that is apparently one of the best in the world. Best for who really? Definitely not for the people.

Protection of Information Bill and the Media Tribunal; much ado about everything

As far as information goes the media in South Africa does not seem to be the best source. I decided to look for information on the Protection of Information Bill, which has caused much ado about everything in the last few days. I also searched around for information on the Media Tribunal which I am led to believe will be introduced in the near future if the ANC has its way. Well, that is a small if.

First the Protection of Information Bill. There is very little in the media that provides information on the Bill but there is a lot that informs one about the dreadful things the Bill, once it becomes law, will do to media freedom. Similarly, reports on the impending Media Tribunal are more about the ugly stuff the tribunal will do to our beloved press and less about what this ghastly thing is or intended to be.

Back to the Protection of Information Bill. During a short and rushed interview conducted by one Chris Gibbons on 702 Talk Radio, the chief state law advisor, one Enver Daniels was called to defend the Bill. Defend it he did, eloquently too, if my opinion in that regard counts for anything.

Armed with a laptop and some bandwidth, I decided to give up on the media and to ask Google for help. Google gave me a copy of the Bill. The Bill tells me that [it intends] To provide for the protection of certain information from destruction, loss or unlawful disclosure; to regulate the manner in which information may be protected; to repeal Protection of Information Act, 1982; and to provide for matters connected therewith.

I have no reason to doubt the Bill when it tells me that. Mr Daniels also told Mr Gibbons that in the view of the state law advisers, the Bill does not in any way infringe upon any of the rights set out in the Bill of Rights. About that I am not sure but I am sure that if there is doubt, those clever lawyers who wear long green dresses will set the record straight.

So I decide to spend some more time with the Bill. It tells me that:

• Unless restricted by law or by justifiable public or private considerations, State information should be available and accessible to all persons;

This and other statements of principle will form the basis on which the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be interpreted and applied. So I decided there isn't much to worry about at this stage but to wait and see what the powers that be does with this Bill. At this point I did not see any of the claims that the Bill signals the end of press freedom. Satisfied that I will for a time being continue to happily blog without the threat of prison or harm, I moved on to the Media Tribunal question.

Let us not lose sight of the reality that as we speak (or is that read or write?) there is a thing called the Media Ombudsman. I have little information on what it does but I am told that it is there to protect the public against the excesses of the media. With that, bear in mind the cringe-worthy reports about individuals and organisation that the media published only to retract later, if that.

I am not sure what form the Tribunal will take - very little information available except from the ANC who are the proponents of the Tribunal. What I know is that other than the Ombud, the only recourse I have when the details of my messy divorce are liberally reported in the press, will be to go to court and by then the damage will have been done already. Mind you, I don't really care much about my sordid shenanigans being published, it is just that my children now have to bear the brunt of the untruths. As I said, that is too late now. There is a small matter of protection of minor children but I guess that was lost on the journalist reporting on the story of young boys who are said to be used for the pleasure of paedophile tourists. So, once again I decide to wait and see what the Tribunal will look like and the powers it will be given to protect the citizens or to bludgeon freedom of the press.

The press must be free to do its civic duty and no government, however popular should be allowed to mess with that. I also believe that my right to privacy especially the privacy of the more vulnerable members of our society is even more important. The press must continue to unearth information for the benefit of our society without fear, favour or prejudice. Where they mess with the wrong guy they will be sued or like in the case of Mr Bullard, be fired. What about where they mess with the vulnerable? Would there still be objection if special courts were established for the single purpose of hearing media excesses claims - for free maybe?

Of course governments and liberation movements are not to be trusted - for the simple reason that they have people in them. On the other hand, if all journalists had the common sense of Anton Harber or the humility of Ryland Fisher we probably would not need a media tribunal; or would we?

As I said, it is much ado about everything and I suspect it will be fun yet.

Just a thought . . .

Why is it that when you trick someone (illiterate) to sign over their asset (which they did not think of as an asset) over to you, it is not regarded as theft? I'm fondly reminded of my forebears who signed over land because they thought they were signing an alliance or for a bag of tobacco.

I guess the law is the law.

When all else fail, give it a name . . .

How is this for a name: Xenophobia! It comes with an exclamation point because it is meant to make you sit upright and pay attention. Similarly, "Farm Murders" is meant to say something other than human beings killing other human beings. So what is new, you may dare ask - nothing really, except the number of deaths. Oh, and the number of heads buried in the sand.

I still don't know how it has helped the people of this country to have named the senseless killing of human beings whose apparent fault is that they are not South Africans, Xenophobic (sic) attacks - how has it helped the victims and their families (yep they do have families, like you and I). A comedian, Chris Rock puts it rather crassly but aptly: ". . . just because you came out of a pussy in Detroit you think you are better?"

Does it make it better or worse that a victim of such ghastly crime is a South African or a foreigner, white or black, farmer or farm worker? Some of us remember the days when there was violence and then there was "black on black" violence. What happened in Bosnia and elswhere in Europe was however never termed "white on white" violence. What is this obsession with name-calling? Does the name-calling give us a better handle of the matter? Or is it some coping mechanism?

What is it that stops us from seeing this for what it is: murder fuelled by irrational self-hatred and envy? This is not new either. E'skia Mphahlele writes of incidents back in the days of Marabastad where people would attack each other based on some group identity or other group irrationality. Soweto, divided into language groups as it is, has had its fair share of violence between that group and the other.

This crime persists for one reason and one reason only: we tolerate it! We even encourage it at some level. I have heard ordinary South African say how their neighbourhoods have become riddled with all manner of crimes since "these people" moved in. These people steal their women, their businesses and who knows what else. It is all these people's fault. A representative of some traders' association was on the radio the other day arguing that these people are bad for the local businesses. Apparently these people under-cut the local traders on every level. These people sell bread cheaper than the local traders can afford to and so the local consumers flock to these people's shops the result being that the local traders lose business and some are even forced to close shops.

Is that reason now for the local people who according to their own argument are benefitting from cheaper goods, to destroy these people and their property? Why is it then called Xenophobia? Why if it is xenophobia does it have a definite African bias to it? Has anyone heard of people from Eastern Europe being hounded and killed? As for the "these people bring crime to our areas" argument; is it not a better response to report the crimes and to cooperate with the police in rooting out the crime and the criminals, wherever they may have been born? I have argued on this space before that to believe that these crimes are xenophobic in nature is to fool ourselves and to make these crimes worse.

Do we not have the capacity to defend people who are being attacked because of their origin? What makes it right for a father, mother, brother, child to be killed brutally by other human beings just because they are classified as another? Then comes Saturday and we are happy to watch other foreigners playing soccer for local clubs - with love and adoration?

The call to the media and authorities is to abandon the name-calling of crimes and to attack the crimes and criminals for what they are: muderers, thieves and arsonists. These are the people who do not deserve a place in our neighbourhoods - not people whose crime is to sell bread cheaper and to have come out of a vijayjay outside the borders of this country. If there is a need to name, let us name and shame the murderers, thieves, rapists and arsonists.

Apparently the LOC is a private body - FIFA a swiss club?

This is an argument, among several, made by an advocated I hold in very high regard - the man taught me many years ago and always mesmerised me. I now get the urge to go back to my notes, just to check. I never thought about the status of the LOC as an entity until this morning when I stumbled on the story about it being in court defending an application by the Mail & Guardian, which wants copies of tender documents. Apparently the M&G wants to show the SA public who and what benefitted from the world cup infrastructure spend.

Back to what is the LOC. Once the question popped into my head I approached the source of all my seeming wisdom - google. If the imminent advocate is correct that the LOC is a private body and should not bow to the government procurement policies and legislation, then how come this site has such a distinct government feel? The content of the page, as you will see (bottom left) is copyright of the GCIS (Government Communications and Information Services). This is apart from the prominent SA Coat of Arms (top left) and this page which sets out how, contrary to the advocate's argument the government of SA provided guarantees to, entered into agreements with and passed an Act of Parliament as requiered by FIFA. The advocate contrarianly and with a straight face I presume, argued that the agreements are between FIFA and SAFA - not the government.

I seem to think I remember (if not hallucinating) various officers of the LOC proclaiming that they are doing this whole world cup thing for the people of SA not for themselves or for SAFA - but I may be wrong. What then is the difficulty with a request to show us how they made it happen for us? These are the kind of actions that lead us ordinary folk to think that there may be something to hide.

There may be a whole lot of reasons why the LOC would not want us to know who the beneficiaries of the world cup largese are but that they are a private body who owe us South Africans no such information, cannot be one such reason. For the LOC, through their legal representatives to argue such is simply disrespectful if not contemptuous.

Now, let us see what the judge is going to rule.

End of transformation? I think not!

A professional engineer whose name now escapes me, in a letter to the BusinessDay declares the untimely death of the word "transformation", at least as "we" know it. He mockingly thanks the BMF (Black Management Forum - not to be confused with the Black Mafia Family of Detroit origin) for offing transformation.

It is widely reported that Jimmy Manyi (a black male South African), a leader of the BMF, expressed disappointment at the appointment of one Futhi Mtoba (a black female South African) as the President of BUSA (Business Unity South Africa). It is said that Jimmy decried the election of Futhi as "a blow against transformation and the unity process in the South African business community and instead a victory for the interests of established business". It is because of this expression that the engineer believes "transformation" to have met its end. The reasoning behind this conclusion is quite interesting. According the engineer (and a few who commented on the letter) a black female cannot be a blow against transformation. One comment goes as far as to ask with a measure of exasperation: "how transformed must she be, must she be a homosexual as well" (or words to that effect). Well, we take that comment whence it comes.

It is the blackness that matters, or so it seems from the contributions that I have read on this matter. For Jimmy to have said what he is reported to have said, was to make nought of the meaning of the word "transformation". It is inconceivable to the good engineer that the appointment/election of a black woman can be a blow against transformation. Would it follow then, I wonder, that an appointment of a white male can never promote transformation?

It is these narrow almost knee-jerk responses to what are very important debates that continue to impoverish and debase what ought to make up a national conversation. It is convenient and easy to gloss over statements, to ignore facts and in this case jettison logic in favour of condescending if not insulting punchlines. If by this, dear reader, you believe me to agree with or to support Jimmy, then you should probably not be reading this.

I am in no position to agree with Jimmy. I am not sure what moved Jimmy to say what he said. Most importantly, I do not know Futhi and I don't know what she has done to deserve the label of a "blow against transformation". I do not believe that it would be anything to do with her blackness (whatever it means to be black).

I am fondly reminded of my previous place of employment where in the name of transformation, I was asked to serve on the management committee. It was impressed upon me that issues of transformation will receive better attention at that level of the organisation's management, thanks to my presence - or was that blackness - I could not tell. "If the issue is transformation", I protested, "then I propose that we appoint that caucasian fella to the management committee". The caucacian person I refer to has recently become very important so I may not use his name. This came as a mild shock to the listeners at the time and I must admit that I was not awake to their shock. You see, they were not prepared to accept that the caucasian person could add anything to, let alone lead issues of transformation. This was a job for a black guy and that was it. I duly served on the management committee with some disastrous consequences.

The fact is, when it comes to the discourse of transformation, that caucasian fella was or rather would have been a blow for (as opposed to against) transformation, his whiteness notwithstanding.

Transformation is alive and well as a word, just like racism in all of its glorious colours.

Sipho Seepe & Annette Lansink: What on earth are you two saying?!

Please read this article by Sipho Seepe and Annette Lansink. Now, if you were a teacher/lecturer what grade would you give the authors? If you have the time, do scroll down after reading that article and you will see a crisp comment on the content of the article. You will also see the kind of negative comment that the manner in which the article is written invites.

The debate is important, more important than I have the words or the time to properly express its importance. The contribution of the authors (both of whom are not strangers to academia) would in my view have been much more useful if it was not set in such hard to get through language. What on earth does "Diversity can be systemic and programmatic with differentiation conceptualised along vertical or horizontal axis." mean?

A student organisation I belonged to many years ago, recognised the inequalities not only in the education that prepared students for university but also in how universities treated students unfairly in their attempt to treat students equally. We have an opportunity to formulate strategies for higher education that seeks to promote excellence without being elitist. It is possible to motivate students of all sorts of backgrounds to strive to be the best they can be. To introduce, as some institutions have done, programmes to help students to get better. All well and good but until and unless the students themselves accept that theirs is an intellectual project, I doubt if it would be of any use.

What the article succeded in doing was to leave me rather cloudy. Unhelpful really.

Racial Rage: a belated apology to my wife

This is a difficult post on many levels but moreso because it is personal. I had, when I started this space, hoped for it to be a forum where we (I dreamt of a large following) could as best we can, deal with issues as honestly and openly as possible. These were meant and still are meant to be issues that should not be personalised. I admit now that everything is personal and that without personal responsibility there really would be no point to this and any other social interaction. I often parade myself as a sensible individual who can deal with challenges with calm and common sense. This past Tuesday, that facade crumbled and exposed a part of me that disappointed me greatly.

I took my wife out on a date to go see a play "Closer" at the Market theatre. Although I cannot really afford it and although I deny it everytime my dear wife points it out, I am a snob. I love reserved sitting. I love knowing that I will not have to fight over a place to sit - I hate fighting (at least I believe I do); I was never good at it. Simply put, I am a coward. I have no time nor stomach for confrontation. At least that is what I believe.

There was no reserved sitting for this particular show and that bothered me somewhat. It bothered me because people have proved time and time again to be quite inept when it comes to public places etiquette. I was proved right. The Laager theatre was fairly full by the time we walked in but there were a few rows (they have these long benches on either side of the aisle) with a few open spaces. I chose the wrong row. We were barely into the row, with my wife leading when this seemingly young white woman jumped up from her seat to tell us that the spaces were taken. That simple act spurred me into a rage. A racial rage. At that moment all I saw was yet another white South African appropriating public space! The fact that she stood up and was about to physically stop my wife from getting past her to get to the open space did not help what was already a hopeless situation. Looking back, I should at that point have stopped to consider what it is I was doing. I regret that I did not. The truth, as pointed out by my wife is, she could not have prevented us from taking those seats. I should have kept my mouth shut, my rage in my pocket and proceded to sit down with dignity. Instead I behaved like a moronic cretin when clearly there was not need for it; in retrospect. No, I am not exaggerating.

I have considered an apology to this young lady (using the term loosely). Apart from the fact that I would not even remember what she looks like (you know how white people look alike) or her name - I do not think she would understand my apology. Here is the thing: her friends for whom she insisted the seats are reserved for or taken by, the friends who were just in the toilet and were coming, did finally arrive. After they had taken "their" seats, there was still enought space for at least two more people. Why did she try to stop us two from taking our place on the bench. Eish!

I am still disappointed at how I reacted to her and do apologise to her. She bore the brunt of all those other white people that I experience all the time appropriating public space. This is slippery-slope, thin-edge-of-the-wedge stuff. There are tons of examples out there of black people appropriating public space too. Why don't I see this and if I do see it, why do I not rage at them? Would I have raged at a rugby type guy under the same circumstances? This is hard stuff for me which I hope I get to grips with for myself. Underneath the calm facade bubbles a rage that can't wait to come out everytime a white driver does 60km/h in the fast lane and won't move. Everytime a white parent stops in the middle of the road to let out the kids out of the car at my childrens school. Instead of waiting their turn to park. Everytime they stop in the middle of the shopping isle to chat, blocking my progress.

This is the stuff that each one of us, on a personal responsibility level, have to get rid of, and get rid of fast. These are people who do not understand nor appreciate common courtesy. I ask not to be judged by my blackness. I tell my colleagues that my being late for meetings has nothing to do with my being black and they laugh. I hope that I have learnt my lesson. The next time it happens - trust me it will happen again - I will see a person whose world I would not like to inhabit and move on to find people who share my views about public space. I will quietly and with dignity assert my right to such public space. Maybe then, I will earn the right not to be judged by my blackness (whatever that means). I take personal responsibility for my behaviour and do not excuse it. I am grateful for the poignant albeit unpleasant lesson, especially at this time of the history of our country.

Rage is so ugly - dignity so beautiful - but reserved sitting is even better.

AWB swears revenge . . .

I'm having my first cup of tea hoping to catch Justice Malala on the telly. I am confronted by Jeremy Maggs instead and what's more, that Patta woman is also on, something is going down (I thought sipping my tea). As it turned out, something big had gone down and it had to do with my birth province, the North-West. Jeremy tells me of the breaking news no, I lie, he drowns me in analysis, supposition and conjecture. But hey, this is news in the 21st century: while we are waiting to learn what the real story is, we will fill the time with what we believe to be the real story. Sorry, I'm off track here (I can hear Jeremy whisper "see, it's not so easy telling a story without getting side-tracked).

Against whom is the AWB revenge going to be metted out? My ever-so-perceptive wife believes it would be directed mainly at the defenceless, as it has always been. I can't help but agree. I can almost see the news headline: "10 year old boy is beaten to death walking to the township from Ventersdorp's only model C school". But that won't be news or would it?

ET was reportedly killed by two of his workers, one of whom is 16 years old. Just as an aside, what is the minimum age of employment in this country? Then again, whatever it is, it may not apply in "Vaderland" sorry, Ventersdorp. Reportedly, the two now unemployed men were arrested or did they hand themselves over to the police, Jeremy was not so clear on this? Is there a difference? It was also reported that the pair had a dispute with ET over pay. Not much else is said about this pair. Who they are, where they were born and when they got into the business of offing others. Maybe that is because they are in custody and like Nelson Mandela many years ago, they may not be quoted or written about.

I put these snippets together in my head and can't help but wonder what the big deal really is. Death is always a tough thing for nearest and dearst, murder is always an ugly thing never to be condoned. I still don't see why my Sunday news schedule had to be changed and why I had to be flooded by news about a has-been like ET. Even as I sit here typing this, the TV is reminding me of this boer's death. Does anyone even care that I missed The Justice Factor?

So, is the AWB going to injure the two men to death (an expression borrowed from another South African political formation)? How is ET's death going to be avenged exactly? What am I missing here? There was a pay dispute and then a murder. Admittedly, there is whole lot missing in the middle but this is all I have to go on. I still don't see the leap to "revenge". I concede, logic, common sense, rationale are not attributes the AWB is known for. Vacant faces, mono-coloured clothing and propensity for violence, now those are familiar AWB traits.

As these members of the South African society contemplate revenge, they may want to pause to consider that revenge, like coke, is better enjoyed cold, ice-cold. They may do even better and remember that coke is laregely over-rated. If they can manage these mental gymnastics . . . who am I kidding, the AWB would cease to exist wouldn't it?

Revenge may be the only thing the AWB has left. Against whom though and for what?

Will real parents please stand up, please stand up . . .

There is nothing more this space can add on the trend of protests and destruction of the very amenities that are said to be the cause of disquiet. I for one do not stir any emotion at the sight of adults pulling up traffic signs, blockading roads and generally making a shameful nuisance of themeselves in the name of "service delivery protests".

What does without fail leave me in a helpless fit of rage is the even greater helplessness of the children. Take the incident, the othere day, where a library was burned down. What is to happen to the children who as their homework are required to visit a library? I listened with fascination as a 6 year old told me that at her school (far, far away from the townships) every Friday is library day and she gets to take a book out to read for the whole week and she returns it the next Friday. You see where this is going right? Will the parents please take up the fight on behalf of their children! When all this is over, the parents/adults will go back to work (if they have work to go to), the out of school youth will go back to whatever it is that they do when they are not protesting. The children however, will still not have a library and they will still not a stop or other traffic signs to protect them from cars.

Then there are other children. Admittedly, much older children, who in all fairness should be held responsible for their actions. These are those children who through the means of their parents or otherwise, are at university. Who form part of a minority that is most likely to be part of this country's privileged few. That is if they finish their studies and are able to put their learned skills to some gainful endeavour. These children however go on a rampage, protesting and blockading. Of course they call this peaceful protest, demonstration and freedom of expression. But, theirs is no different an expression of that freedom to that exercised by, say the taxi drivers/owners against the BRT. Once again I ask, where are the parents of these children? Is there no one who can say: "Ok, so Polokwane promised free education and yes, Polokwane is taking some time to deliver that free education - please go do what you are here for while Polokwane gets its act together." In a manner of speaking. In any event, are the other children not as free to attend class if they want to; as those who seek to express their freedom are free to protest and demonstrate? Where are the parents of these children whose aspirations the children carry on their shoulders. "You are the first in this clan to go to university, make us proud." The funding model of tertiary education is a separate matter. "My daughter, education is your inheritance!" Where are the parents who say this?

Then there is this particular tragic case going on south of here. Children are dead, parents are mourning and two children are charged with the murder of those children. To this day, I see the pain in my mother's eyes - the pain of burrying her young son. This is tragic. Now, children who are supposed to be in school; who are supposed to be grateful that they are alive and have an opportunity to get an education; are protesting, demonstrating, expressing their freedom and threatening violence outside the court. They want to meet out their brand of justice to the accused. They, like their brothers and sisters and parents elsewhere, are destroying the neighbourhood. Signs are uprooted, dustbins emptied onto the road surfaces and mayhem with wild abandon ensues. Where are the parents of these poor souls to whip them right into the classrooms? Are there any children in any classroom in Protea? Will these children be at the court everytime those other children appear in court?

When matters are as serious if not as tragic as this, one can only hope that the real parents will stand up lest the children remain forever down.

So, when did African lose its meaning?

Probably around the same time as the decision that Robert Sobukwe is no longer relevant as a liberation figure in South Africa - you may say.

It seems to be widely accepted that reference to African is short-hand for Black people who are not Coloured or Indian. I have also heard "Black African" being used - this is more confusing than the former use. The explanation that was given to me during one of those important corporate SA meetings was that: "Black is a generic term which means Africans, Coloured and Indians". In fact, I was referred to some legislation which decrees as such. So, if it says so in an Act of Parliament, then it must be so.

African no longer means "of Afrika" as would European (of Europe), Chinese (of China), Indian (of Indian), Namibian (of Namibia) and so on and so forth. It means a Black South African. It follows that an African living in South Africa is not like one living in Nigeria. All this is confusing - moreso to an anal retentive darkie trying to make sense of his messy world. It is with tragic amusement that I ponder corporate SA statistics: 20% Coloured, 5% Indian, 3% Black. However, seeing that the law says Black means all three, it is 3% African just to make sure that the 3% has no Coloureds or Indians in it. Of the 3 so-called previously disadvantaged groups, only one is African the rest plus Whites, are not.

Other than in legislation, past and present - do the terms Black and Coloured have any meaning? Do they have any meaning other than the constructed meaning? I get a NO to that answer - what do you get? Most adult South Africans my age have a fairly good idea why those words were given their respective meaning. One would have thought therefore that such meaning would be rejected on account of nonsense - but NO, we have a transition to make sense of here. Besides, what is not measured, is not done - so they say in corporate SA. How then would we determine whether the ills of the past are being undone without the use of these neat concepts? I have no cooking clue, like that chef in that reality TV show.

So I'm thinking: isn't it so that I am no more black than I am not white and no more coloured than I am not black and not white? I can live with all this but what does that have to do with African? I am quite happy to be confused by artificial constructions such as Black, Coloured and White. Remember that movie dialogue "you people are more brown than you are black - you people are more pink than you are white"? For Timbuktu's sake why does African have to be thrown into this confusion too?

I don't know about you but me - I am an African, a South African Motswana, Mongwaketsi wa ga heyana heya, masia le kgomo a lesa temo - and about that, let there be no confusion. So I ask with humility, when you call me Black what do you mean? I know what you mean when you call me African.

In celebration of Slavery, Apartheid and Bantu Education . . . . . . . NOT!

A certain journalist, author and African-American gentleman celebrates being an American in a book whose title I cannot remember but which caused a stir a few years ago when it came out or at least when it hit the South African bookshops. The name of the gentlemen and the title of his book are not the point; the point is the celebration of his American-ness or rather, the words he uses to express that celebration: “thank God I’m an American”. Nothing wrong with that; I have been heard to express similar sentiment about being a South African, since 1994, that is.

In the book, the gentleman states that he is grateful that his ancestor(s) survived the perilous journey across the Atlantic and the ravages of slavery on their arrival in the land of the free. He is grateful that they did not succumb to scurvy or wanton killing aboard the slave ship; or that they did not find themselves on the wrong side of the massa’s rifle. In his celebration and gratitude he makes it clear that he is even happier that he was not born in Africa.

There is a context to this book and the sentiments that are expressed by the author. The book was apparently inspired by the scenes witnessed by the author while as a journalist, he covered and reported on the genocide in Rwanda. He describes how while standing on the banks of some river in Rwanda, he saw bloated discoloured dead human bodies floating down the river like logs. I am not quoting from the book; I am paraphrasing at great liberty. This gruesome experience leads to the celebration of being an American as opposed to being a citizen of one of those vicious West African countries. My interpretation: “thank God for the slave trade”. This brings me to the point of this blah, blah, bloody blah . . . But before that, one more story.

Another journalist/columnist, this time a South African, in his letter chastising the present minister of basic education for all manner of faults not the least her cordial relationship with one Julius Malema; celebrates the “good” virtues of Bantu Education. He says that the current lot in government when they took over some 15 years ago threw out the Bantu Education water with the good values, respect and discipline baby. He states that respect and discipline were one of the good virtues of Apartheid/Bantu Education and these, he pleads, we should have kept and in fact advises the minister to restore them. When addressing discipline, he promptly reminds the minister that it is her ilk in the ANC that did away with corporal punishment in schools and threatened any teacher who administers it with jail (without passing begin or collecting 200). My interpretation: “there is a lot that was good about Apartheid/Bantu Education”.

I am somewhat of a zealot when it comes to these things. You see, I struggle to see how any good can come from evil. Having caught the tail end of Bantu Education, I am no expert on the system. When 1994 came, I was already a father of a 3 year old girl (yes, I started farming early). I managed to get through school ok and gained access to tertiary education. I do not however celebrate Apartheid, Bantu Education or any of the so-called good virtues of that system. Those of us Black people who made it, did not do so because of Bantu Education but in spite of it. The terrible high school that I attended (which for reasons that can only exist under Apartheid, was very popular) boasts some impressive individuals among its past students. Take the daughter of a mineworker who now holds a BSc Honours from Kings College London among her numerous qualifications least of which is a medical degree from South Africa’s top university. She doesn’t celebrate Apartheid, Bantu Education, the migrant labour system or the terrible school. She celebrates her father who insisted on her being the best she can be. She celebrates her mother who nurtured and inspired her unbreakable spirit.

The so-called good virtues of Apartheid or any of its monstrous sub-inventions deserve a better analysis than they routinely receive in our media and academic writing. We need analysis and commentary that appreciates the enormity of the task before the political leadership while decrying poor leadership. It will not matter how much work the government and schools put into solving the challenges faced by the education system. What would matter is for parents to take a page out of that old mineworker’s book of encouragement and support for our children. Of course it makes for great politics to make speeches and debate the issues and to point fingers. Unfortunately it is in that time that we will continue to produce school leavers who are only qualified to be hewers of wood and drawers of water. Maybe that is not such a big deal when our own are taken care of and poised for greater things in those other schools where teaching and learning happens all year through.